explaining that the only material difference between the rights and remedies afforded plaintiffs under Title II and Section 504 lies in their' respective causation requirements, but that this difference was immaterial where the plaintiffs claims are based on a failure to make reasonable accommodations for disabled individuals
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the only material difference between the rights and remedies afforded plaintiffs under Title II and Section 504 lies in their' respective causation requirements, but that this difference was immaterial where the plaintiffs claims are based on a failure to make reasonable accommodations for disabled individuals
- explaining that “having already held that sovereign immunity does not bar the appellants’ claim under [the Reha- bilitation Act], we need not address at this juncture the issue of abrogation under Title II of the ADA, because the rights and remedies under either are the same for purposes of this case”
- holding that the court need not address the issue of abrogation under Title II of the ADA because the Rehabilitation Act claim was not barred by sovereign immunity and afforded the same rights and remedies
- explaining that the only material difference between Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act lies in them respective causation requirements
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
EDITH H. JONES, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the judgment and in the majority’s opinion. In my view, it would have been appropriate to decide whether Tennessee v. Lane extends Congress’s permissible abrogation of state sovereign immunity in ADA Title II beyond its precise purview, i.e., the fundamental right of access to the courts, and into the field of education. Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 533-34 , 124 S.Ct. 1978 , 158 L.Ed.2d 820 (2004). See Pace v. Bogalusa ISD, 403 *456 F.3d 272 , 303 (5th Cir.2005)(Jones, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).